What Has Your Representative Done?

Why do we allow people that regularly express a near borderline loathing for the constitution to continually be elected back to office? It is clear that people such as Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid among others regularly rail against the system of governing that gave us this great nation. In the cases of Pelosi and Reid especially they have even gotten laws passed through means which were not constitutional and yet no one from the rest of congress said or did anything about it. This can only mean one thing. They are all in on it or at least can’t be bothered to defend the constitution they swore to defend. So again the question is, “Why do we the American people continue to vote them back in office?”

Are these really the only or the best people we could find to do this job? Everyone wants to find blame for our woes but the reality is that we the American people keep voting back into office the very people who are responsible for the destruction we are seeing done to our way of life. They would have us believe they really want to fix it, but ask yourself, “Who created it?” Do you really think they feel they made some mistake? Do you really think they feel what they have done is wrong? If they did they would just repeal the laws, but instead they refine or add to those laws making the situation every worse. Either these non-representing representatives are purposely bringing our nation to its knees or they grossly incompetent. In either case they should be forced from office by the American voter.

Everyone wants to believe it’s all the fault of someone else representative. Speaking only for the representatives and senators of my own state I would challenge anyone to tell me exactly what they’ve done that is so wonderful and noteworthy that we have to give them careers in office? If any CEO ran their company the way Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi have run the state of California I have no doubt that they would be working on an assembly line and would never find another position as a CEO for any other company! Are we really that blind to what a poor job they’re doing?

Barbie Boxer can’t be bothered to look into Benghazi, or Fast And Furious, because it is more important to her to support her party than to pursue justice and get to the bottom of things that are so egregious that even with the media cover-up the American people still want answers. I’m sure the media and our representative think if they just ignore these things long enough they’ll just go away. So far this seems to be proving true which is very sad!

Republicans no difference from Democrats

The Republicans have made 30 or 40 shows of repealing Obamacare. It would seem they have only done this because they knew nothing could or would happen from it. Now they actually have a chance to stop it and since the first time the idea was put forward they have looked for reasons why they should not defund it. This is something within their constitutional power. Supposedly they will take the blame for the government shut down.

All of this says that they think we are too stupid to know that the fault would be the democrat senate that refused to fund the government because of one thing they wanted to keep in their one and only significant piece of legislation. Beside doing this the congress has been a do nothing congress for the last 5 years plus and what they have done they would just soon forget because it was nothing but massive spending with the various stimulus packages.

Republicans came into the budget and debt ceiling issue stating ahead of time that they would not let the government shut down. This is as much as a fighting going into a fight saying I’m not going to use my right at all. Do they really think the Democrats don’t know they don’t have anything else to bargain with?

No Boehner is acting like it’s a serious threat to say delay Obamacare one year or face a shut down. It’s like he’s begging them to give him some opportunity to save face. Of course this only shows all the more that he is trying to help the Democrats and Obama remain as a law. He knows this will give the Democrats a chance to fix some of the many problems in the law. It also means that the damaging parts of the law won’t be seen till after the 2014 election and thus it helps shield the Democrats from what could otherwise be a very damaging election year for them.

This amounts to nothing more than a save for the Democrats and Obamacare and all the time he’s trying to pretend this is the best he can do. We know the Democrats are not listening to the American people. This is clear after the way they jammed Obamacare down our throats in the first place. But now we have Boehner and the most all of the Republicans pretending there is nothing they can do when this is the one thing they CAN do!

Republicans don’t seem to get that actions speak louder than words. They acting like taking a stand is going to get them removed from office and that’s why they’re not doing anything, but the filibuster by Ted Cruz proved just the opposite. He has more support now than he ever had before taking a stand and doing the filibuster.

As to the media or the Democrats making this about them shutting down the government because of one thing they should have been out in front of that before the Democrats every said it. They should have started with, “We’re going to defund Obamacare but fund the rest of the government and if Democrats are willing to shut down the government over one thing by not passing our bill then they are the ones shutting down the government over one issue.” They had to know that’s what was coming and as with most things it helps if you beat the other side to the punch because the argument goes both ways and they just need to put it back on the Democrats.

Does Taking from the Rich Really Work

For those who think the founding fathers didn't know what they were doing when they set up the constitution or that they couldn't possibly imagine how far we would come and couldn't understand the complexities of our modern society read the following by John Adams.

 

“Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the other; and at the last a downright equal division of everything be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.” John Adams

What he wrote sounds eerily like the book Atlas Shrugged. It also sounds like he has been reading the speeches of Obama, and the rest of our progressive representatives. It is clear in every society that the rough percentage of those who are perceived to have versus those who are perceived to not have will be about the same, but the principle of private property is there to protect everyone's property.

Our progressive representatives always talk as though they were not the rich, which is absurd! Which of us has a net worth of over 100 million dollars. If they were sincere about the rich giving more they would be the first to offer to give up huge amounts of their riches, yet oddly, or maybe not so oddly they always right exceptions into their laws to exclude them from the penalties they're enacting on others. Worse they got what they got but truly forcing it out of our pockets through confiscatory taxes. They truly produce anything for the money they take. The only thing they offer is more ways to take our money.

The idle are more than happy to take the work and money of the industrious especially if they can absolve their consciences by saying they didn't take it, they just voted for it, but that they agree with it. The truly said thing is that what the government takes from people never comes back to them to the same degree. This is redistribution of wealth. Your work, represented by the money you are paid is taken from you and given to someone else. This is the same as saying that you must work a certain amount of your time for your neighbor with no benefit to you except knowing that you helped someone. 

Again our representatives love to pretend this is an act of charity or compassion on their parts, but they are not the ones being forced to work or give. As mentioned above they exempt themselves from every consequence of the laws they make.

Please read the paragraph above several times and see if it does not ring true with you.